Post by PanchoPost by The TodalOf course it wasn't a hoax. What is surprising is that some sociopaths
are still making money from their conspiracy-theory websites (and from
their "books") claiming that it was a hoax.
See https://www.richplanet.net/
and
https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-trial-of-richard-d-hall
Latest news about the High Court case of Hibbert v Hall: judgment has
been given by Mrs Justice Steyn and Richard Hall's claims that the
explosion at the Ariana Grande cooncert was a hoax are judged to
constitute the statutory tort of harassment. I assume damages will
subsequently be assessed. Worth a read.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Hibbert-v-Hall-
Judgment.pdf
Reminds me of the Sandy Hook school shooting, and Alex Jones jeering
at the victims and claiming that the shooting was a hoax, and being
found liable in damages. I wonder whether these people just declare
bankruptcy and continue the same behaviour.
It is hard to see what the harassment was,
If you find it hard, I suggest you read the judgment carefully. He was
repeatedly accusing the two victims of the bomb attack of telling lies.
And his allegations were of course widely distributed on the internet
and were believed by many gullible people.
quote
A reasonable person with such information would realise that repeated
attempts to undermine and discredit the account given by a victim of
such a tragedy, which is inevitably now a pivotal fact of their lives,
by making highly defamatory statements and casting out baseless and
deeply offensive speculation with abandon and levity, for commercial
gain, would cause real distress.
The false allegations that Mr Hall made were grave, with the consequence
that a very large number of people have been misinformed, and led to
believe that the Attack was a hoax, that the claimants were not injured
in the Attack, and that Mr Hibbert has (along with many others)
repeatedly and publicly lied to the public for monetary gain. Mr Hall
has published and continues to publish his false allegations despite the
Attack having been the subject of thorough investigations, a criminal
trial, and authoritative reports which any reasonable person would
recognise command respect. Mr Hall’s publications are not only false,
but they also lack any semblance of balance.
I think it might be
Post by Panchoapproaching/watching the victims, in person. i.e. not about posting
falsehoods on the internet. It looks to me as if the MSM/establishment
are muddying the waters in order to normalise the idea of punishing
previously protected free speech. Another step by the establishment to
regain control of propaganda from social media.
The establishment? Do you mean the unfortunate victims of the bombing
who have to live the rest of their lives with pain and disability? Are
they not entitled to the protection of our courts?
Post by PanchoWhile we would all like it if people didn't post unpleasant falsehoods,
I think it is a mistake to make it a general crime. Who is to judge what
is true, false or just poorly understood? Protecting hurt feelings is
not worth limiting our right to free speech. Such laws will inevitably
be perverted and used against whistleblowers, people telling
uncomfortable truths. e.g. Saying I think politicians might be corrupt
will become a crime unless you can point to iron cast evidence of
corruption.
We really do need to stand up for freedom of speech, even if that means
we have to suffer trolls.
If you think Mr Hall's freedom of speech is worth standing up for, then
I hope you are in a tiny minority and I think you would change your mind
if it was you whom he accused of lying to the nation and attention-seeking.